Before today’s events, I was going to report on the row at last night’s meeting of the Labour group at Tower Hamlets council.
In June, I wrote this post. Back then, strangely, new council leader Helal Abbas was seen as the favourite to become the Labour candidate for mayor. As a result, Lutfur Rahman and his chief lieutenant Cllr Marc Francis lobbed him and colleagues a hand grenade. They proposed a motion to their colleagues that the new mayor’s salary should be capped at about £30,000 a year. The pair said that would be a sign to voters that politicians (unlike Newham mayor Sir Robin Wales, who bags a salary of £81,000) were doing their bit for the recession.
For ease of reference, here’s the wording of that motion:
Dear colleague
As you will have seen from the agenda for Monday’s Labour Group meeting, i am bringing a motion introducing term limits on any Labour directly-elected Mayor and reducing the Special Responsibility Allowance for that post and other Cabinet positions.
This motion is itself fairly self-explanatory, but i will explain my reasoning in a little more detail on Monday. I would obviously welcome your support for this motion, so please don’t hesitate to let me know if you any queries before then.
Yours
Lutfur
Motion – Directly-Elected Mayor
Proposed: Cllr Lutfur Rahman
Seconded: Cllr Marc Francis
This Labour Group notes:
- The referendum result in support of a Directly-Elected Mayor and the election for this position will be held on 21st October;
- That in other local authorities the introduction of an Executive Mayor in place of the Council Leader has resulted in an increase in the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for that position;
- That, as well as an Executive Mayor, Newham has 16 Cabinet Members and Mayoral Advisers, each in receipt of an SRA;
- That some directly-elected Mayors are now beginning their third consecutive Term of Office;
- The new Conservative / Lib Dem Coalition Government is expected to require around £10 million in “in-year” cuts from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, as well as significant additional savings thereafter.
This Labour Group believes:
- That it is important for the Labour Party and its elected representatives to take on the burden of any necessary savings before considering imposing cuts in frontline services;
- A Mayor, Deputy Mayor and eight Cabinet members is a sufficient Executive body for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
- George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had it right in establishing the convention of a two-term limit for the President of the United States, now enshrined in law by the 22nd Amendment.
This Labour Group therefore resolves:
- To peg the SRA of the Directly-Elected Mayor for 2010/11 and 2011/12 at the current level of the SRA to the Council Leader less 5 per cent;
- To peg the SRA for the Deputy Mayor for 2010/11 and 2011/12 at the current level of the SRA to the Deputy Leader less 5 per cent;
- To peg the SRA for Cabinet Members for 2010/11 and 2011/12 at the current level of the SRA to Cabinet Members less 5 per cent;
- To require that the Mayor appoint no more than one Deputy Mayor and eight Cabinet Members to serve on the Executive;
- That no Labour Mayor should seek a 3rd Term of Office.
The motion was rejected.
At the meeting of the full council last Wednesday, politicians had another attempt to agree pay. What about £65,000, a cross-party group suggested? Er, no. Labour councillors rejected that as well.
So, last night, when it seemed certain that Lutfur would be mayor, they had another go. Incredibly, by a majority of 20 to 18, Labour’s supposedly cost-conscious public servants voted to recommend a salary of £75,000. Now, who would be so keen to see such massive pay inflation? According to one of Lutfur’s supporters, it was, er, Lutfur’s new club of supporters. They said a pay package well below that of Newham and of Hackney would “reduce the dignity” of the Tower Hamlets office.
Whereas Marc Francis showed consistency and voted against the proposal, Lutfur abstained.
Abbas, meanwhile, voted against. So, we now know one thing, at least: Abbas will not accept a £75k salary if elected on October 21.
Trial by Jeory 
Term limits were introduced by the 22nd amendment in 1951. nothing to do with Washington ( president for how long?) or Jefferson. The motion indicates that they will have trouble adapting to a new system, whoever the candidate is.
Hold on there, Ted. Helal Abbas may have voted against setting the salary of the Mayor at £75,000 pa but that does not mean he is honour bound to refuse it if elected to the job. He can perfectly well say that he was against it, but that it has now been set as the rate for the job.
Abbas is perfectly entitled to reject the nominated salary as a matter of principle, just in the same way that Gordon Brown declined the PM salary when he moved into Number 10.
He is entitled to, but he is not obliged to do so. If elected he would be doing nothing inconsistent in taking the full rate for the job. You wrote “we now know” that he would refuse it when you know no such thing!
David, clearly the intended irony/underlying cynicism of that statement did not come across to you!
Washington in fact only stood for two terms, from which the US citizens established the convention of two term Presidencies. The convention was never enshrined into law until the 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 (to be really picky, 1951 was the date by which it had been ratified by three quarters of the states).
The amendment was, of course, introduced following Rooseveldt’s third term which was made necessary (or at least expedient) by the Second World War. (There had been other Presidents who attempted to be selected for a third term but failed to gain their party’s nomination.)
Washington had retired from public life after leading the successful War of Independence. He returned to preside over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new US constitution and then stood for the first Presidency. He was reluctant to serve a second term but did so to ensure continuity and build the solidity of the new Presidential role and the new government of the US. He wanted to retire and was pleased to do so after two terms.
Jefferson had a bit more to say about the desirability of limiting the Presidency to two terms, being concerned that otherwise the incumbent would treat it as a job for life.
Hope this has provided an entertaining distraction from the dogs dinner that is TH Labour party politics. Now I must go and find my life wherever I left it.
Since ratification is not automatic, two terms were introduced in 1951.
Roosevelt was, of course, elected for four terms, not three.
If others stood for a third term, then there wasn’t
really a convention is there?
Granted Washington was two terms president, but was de facto leader of the country as commander in chief.
Anyway, I think we both agree the motion was bo*%$^ks.
While we’re on the subject of George Washington here are some excerpts from his farewell speech that seem very apposite to TH at the moment:
” In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.—You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations;—they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection…
“All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.—They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force—to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party;—often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;—and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests.—However combinations or associations of the above descriptions may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion…
” I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations.—Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.—It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.—But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.—The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.—It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the Government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.—This within certain limits is probably true—and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.—But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.—From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose,—and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.—A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”